The New Testament records the history of the church from approximately A.D. 30 to approximately A.D. 90. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, history records several Roman Catholic doctrines and practices among early Christians. Is it not logical that the earliest Christians would be more likely to understand what the Apostles truly meant? Yes, it is logical, but there is one problem. Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism.

What is the explanation for why the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit signs of Roman Catholicism?

The answer is simple  the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century (and following) church did not have the complete New Testament. Churches had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament (and the full Bible) were not commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in A.D. 1440. The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral tradition, and through extremely limited availability to the Word in written form. At the same time, it is easy to see how false doctrine could creep into a church that only had access to the Book of Galatians, for example. It is very interesting to note that the Protestant Reformation followed very closely after the invention of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into the common languages of the people. Once people began to study the Bible for themselves, it became very clear how far the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the church that is described in the New Testament.

Scripture never mentions using "which church came first" as the basis for determining which is the "true" church. What it does teach is that one is to use Scripture as the determining factor as to which church is preaching the truth and thus is true to the first church. It is especially important to compare Scripture with a church's teaching on such core issues as the full deity and humanity of Christ, the atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary, salvation from sin by grace through faith, and the infallibility of the Scriptures. The first church and one true church is recorded in the New Testament. That is the church that all churches are to follow, emulate, and model themselves after.

Where does the New Testament claim for itself what you claim for it, that it is the only source of Gods word and the only authority binding on the souls of men?# Yes, it is binding, but where do you find in sola Scriptura that the Bible as we have it today, is the only binding authority? Doesnt Jesus give the apostles binding authority in both Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Does your fundamentalist tradition allow you to accept these verses? Or does your grid of private judgment and Baptist customs, filter out the Lords intent when He gave authority to His Church (the apostles as the foundation; Eph. 2:20) to bind and to loose?

Don't use God name in vain.Creator created you on own image.Creator of everything..don't let down others with your story..he is creator of visible and not invisible.For light for your human beneficiary you can used your natural ability..svica=light =element lithium.http://www.google.com.au/search...

Someone wrote a friend of mine asserting that 2 Timothy 3:16 proved that Scripture alone was all we needed. The famous passage reads,All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

My friend responded:No Catholic, of course, disagrees with these verses, or with any verses of Sacred Scripture. Of course Scripture is profitable! We Catholics see it as one of the three pillars of authority for the Christian (the other two being Sacred Tradition and the Magisterim  the teaching authority of the Church).

But Protestants unhappily, sometimes, reading into this text what they want to see, and more than it asserts.

Imagine you are a soldier and on your first day you are told:The Army Teaching Manual is given by inspiration of the experts, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in the life of a soldier: That the soldier may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all a soldier needs to do.

Would you understand that to mean that the soldier no longer needs ranked officers, a drill sergeant for training him, weaponry, ammunition, armour, communications equipment, etc.? Saying that X is profitable or necessary and that X helps one become thoroughly furnished for something doesnt say at all that Y is therefore not profitable or necessary and that Y helps one become thoroughly furnished for something.

And how can Protestants square their reading of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 with Ephesians 4:11-12, which reads:

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

According to these verses, what is needed for the perfecting of the saints are the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers! How could this possibly be if all we need is the Bible alone?

Furthermore we are informed by James But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.. Would you suggest that patience is sufficient!(1:4).

Game, set, match . I think. The Bible was never meant to stand alone. It was given by God, through the pens of men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and it took hundreds of years before the Church discerned and determined which books belonged in the New Testament.

And it was not Scripture alone which was the principle of the early Christians as we can see from the Bible itself,Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle(2 Thess. 2:15).

Notice also 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first,no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

<quoted text>Apostolic successionActs 1: 20-26 Matthias chosen to Replace Judas This is Apostolic succession.20 For, said Peter,it is written in the Book of Psalms:May his place be deserted;let there be no one to dwell in it,[c]and,May another take his place of leadership.[d]21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the wholetime the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from Johns baptism to the timewhen Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of hisresurrection.23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed,Lord, you know everyones heart. Show us which of these two youhave chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judasleft to go where he belongs. 26 Then they cast lots, and the lotfell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

~~~That is not papal succession...if it were then Judas was the first pope

<quoted text>I'll tell you what. You give me chapter and verse that says the books of the New Testament are all that's revealed about Jesus and His teaching.fool.

~~~

Why did you not give Biblical validation ...to refute my challenge to the Roman Catholics Churches dynasty,... instead of calling me a fool?

Name calling.... is proof positive .

that you have no answers..

It is also proof that you don't care that Jesus said...

Mat_5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

god creted everything and say i give to man and woman under command..now..you liked limite..who can and who can't.

Jesus Christ words is perfect..no limite.

Did I hurt you?I am sorry if I am.I think you make my inspiration work..my subconsciousness can talk.

Please tell me..how you call people who simple can make forgetful=brisanje memorije demantia..is that crime..if yes please tell me how many victim from smart deadly ow-full diploma.Who used that diploma?Is that nice call people forgetful..yes and no..must be explain why yes why not.If yes! Please tell me is that crime?How many diploma used trough institutional harassment..political racial as well many others phobic diploma..did law exist about that toward type of that people..or victim need be as law act by-themselves eye for eye teeth for teeth?If law not exist for victim..trough diploma which is cover up but still enjoyed hurt others.

<quoted text>~~~Why did you not give Biblical validation ...to refute my challenge to the Roman Catholics Churches dynasty,... instead of calling me a fool?Name calling.... is proof positive .that you have no answers..It is also proof that you don't care that Jesus said...Mat_5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

why in the WORLD must you continue to use Bible verses that dont have anything to do with the conversation?

Clay is NOT your brother.(literal) if Spiritual, then prove it.

I would think after over 60 years(so you say), that maybe, just maybe you might have learned something about it{Bible}.

you are probably the most frustrating person that I have ever seen, you are supposed to be a minister, yet your knowledge of what the Bible actually says and means is nil,void, and Raca.

I would love to come on line and see you post a Bible verse that is appropriate to the discussion at hand.

Clay:Wait second...are you saying you have shown the CC is not the true Church through Apostolic succession? How on Earth did you do that? I'm going to guess you did it by slander, propaganda and ignorance. The three virtues of Protestantism.

**********

Who was it said the other day that the CC respected all faiths? Was that you?

<quoted text>why in the WORLD must you continue to use Bible verses that dont have anything to do with the conversation?Clay is NOT your brother.(literal) if Spiritual, then prove it.I would think after over 60 years(so you say), that maybe, just maybe you might have learned something about it{Bible}.you are probably the most frustrating person that I have ever seen, you are supposed to be a minister, yet your knowledge of what the Bible actually says and means is nil,void, and Raca.I would love to come on line and see you post a Bible verse that is appropriate to the discussion at hand.

Jesus was speaking literal which is why I said that Clay is not his earthly brother(literal) so this verse is moot, and any minister should know that. look at the part of this verse, WE DONT HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE SANHEDRIN(COUNCIL).

{and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:}

Clay:Wait second...are you saying you have shown the CC is not the true Church through Apostolic succession?How on Earth did you do that?I'm going to guess you did it by slander, propaganda and ignorance. The three virtues of Protestantism.**********Who was it said the other day that the CC respected all faiths? Was that you?But slander, propaganda and ignorance...???Shame...KayMarie

WHY DONT YOU TWO STOP THIS FOOLISHNESS? IF YOU WANT TO POST, THEN GET YOUR OWN NICK.

<quoted text>Jesus was speaking literal which is why I said that Clay is not his earthly brother(literal) so this verse is moot, and any minister should know that. look at the part of this verse, WE DONT HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE SANHEDRIN(COUNCIL).{and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:}

If you are so smart... suppose you take the Bible and either refute the claim of the Roman Catholics dynasty in Rome...Or prove that it is Biblical ...

You chimed in out debate so suppode you give the answer either for or against the dynasty.

<quoted text>If you are so smart... suppose you take the Bible and either refute the claim of the Roman Catholics dynasty in Rome...Or prove that it is Biblical ...You chimed in out debate so suppode you give the answer either for or against the dynasty.

GIF, for over four years you have been an embarressment to Christianity with your ignorance of what the Bible teaches, and because of that, the catholics on here have nothing but contempt for every person on here, who does try and reason with them about our differences in theology.

if you did attend a Bible college, you should ask for your money back, they taught you NOTHING.

if all you did was clean the blackboards and the seats, then we understand why you are ignorant of the Word.

you wouldnt be capable of a better understanding than what you now possess

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.